from the gouda-cheese dept

Last week, we wrote about how French Twitter users were being warned not to use social media tools like Twitter to reveal local polling or election results before all the French voting booths closed in the Presidential election. We pointed out how silly this was, and it appears that folks in France used a simple mechanism to get around the rules: using WWII-era coding techniques to share information in the same manner that the French Resistance used:

As a result, incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy became either Tokaji wine which, like his father, comes from Hungary, or Rolex because of his perceived "bling-bling" lifestyle.

His Socialist opponent Francois Hollande was either Gouda cheese (from Holland) or a soft, sweet "Flanby" caramel desert -- an old and unforgiving nickname for the portly frontrunner.

Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen was associated with the names of totalitarian regimes or rodents and Communist Party-backed Jean-Luc Melenchon was either a rotten tomato or something linked to the former Soviet Union.

From there, it sounds like people just had fun with it, figuring out all sorts of ways to obliquely refer to the different candidates and how well they were doing without directly referring to any of them. Once again, the internet views censorship as an obstacle, and routes around it, through a rather creative form of "encryption."

from the ACTA,-TPP-take-note dept

Back in 2009, Techdirt wrote about an interesting challenge to a then-new law against counterfeits in Kenya, on the grounds that it might be used to stop perfectly legal generic variants of drugs being imported into the country. That matters, because around 90% of drugs used in Kenya are generics, which means that blocking them would have serious implications for healthcare in that country.

Kenya's High court ruled on Friday that lawmakers must review legislation that could threaten the import of generic drugs, allowing Kenyans to continue accessing affordable medicine.

The judge specifically noted the problem mentioned above:

"The act is vague and could undermine access to affordable generic medicines since the act had failed to clearly distinguish between counterfeit and generic medicines," Judge Mumbi Ngugi said in her ruling.

As a result, Kenyan lawmakers will have to amend the bill to distinguish clearly between counterfeit and generic drugs.

That's not only a huge win for the millions of Kenyans who depend upon generics for their treatment, but it also highlights a key problem for ACTA and TPP, which both seek to grant broad powers to border officials to seize medicines without distinguishing sufficiently between counterfeits and generics.

While it is claimed that ACTA will protect against falsified medicines by allowing countries and companies to take strong measures in trademark disputes, this may in fact impede access to genuine generic medicines.

the U.S. is requesting that TPP countries grant customs officials the ex officio right to detain shipments of medicines at the border, even in transit, if the goods are suspected of being counterfeits or if they are considered “confusingly similar” to trademarked goods.

Other countries need to follow Kenya's lead and confirm that access to vital generic medicines is a right that cannot be over-ridden by purely commercial considerations. Among other things, that means throwing out ACTA, and re-drafting TPP's dangerously vague sections dealing with counterfeit drugs.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are a lot of standardized tests for kids to take, but it's not always clear what the results of the tests actually mean. If society wants to create a huge population of adults who can memorize some facts or fill out circles with no.2 pencils, then we're doing a pretty good job of it. Here are a few links that question the usefulness of certain kinds of tests.

from the genetic-history?-really? dept

Ah, ownership society. We see this all the time with successful books, movies and TV shows -- where suddenly someone (generally a complete nobody) discovers that a popular media vehicle is based on a similar generic idea that they once wrote about too... and they insist that the successful work must be infringing. I guess we can add video games to that list as well. Ubisoft has apparently been sued by an author you've likely never heard of, John Beiswenger, who wrote some book whose premise has a vague similarity to the premise of Ubisoft's popular Assassin's Creed game. Both stories apparently involve genetic memory -- the idea that memories can be passed down from your ancestors.

But that seems to be about as far as the similarities go. One would have hoped that a lawyer would have explained to Beiswenger that copyright only covers specific expression, rather than generic idea, but apparently that didn't happen. Of course, as Julian Sanchez points out, the idea of "genetic memory" is such a common sci-fi trope that there's a whole page dedicated to listing out stories that use the concept -- many of which predate Beiswenger's book (and nearly all of which were significantly more successful). Don't expect this lawsuit to go very far.

from the that's-sneaky dept

Open Access continues to gain momentum, as more and more researchers seek to make their work freely available online. One way of doing that is by modifying the contract that academic publishers routinely send to potential authors, inserting a clause that allows digital copies to be distributed.

In the strange field of computer science, we publish most of our scholarly articles in refereed conferences. In other fields they have unrefereed conferences and refereed journals. We have journals too, but they are less important than the top conferences. In a typical CS conference, 200 or 300 papers are submitted, three months later they have been refereed and 30 or 50 papers are accepted; three weeks later the authors must send in their full-length refereed articles as camera-ready PDF files. Then the conference proceedings must appear (in print and online) within a short time, a few weeks later, when the conference convenes.

Imagine, then, he says, if enough of those authors of the accepted papers simply wrote in a change to their publishing contracts regardless of what publishers might have said about accepting them. The publisher could, in theory, reject those papers, but then it would have a rather thin conference volume, since it could not easily find alternatives to fill the missing pages in the short time period available. As Appel says:

If the volume appears but missing three-fourths of its papers, then that conference is effectively dead, and may never recover in future years.

The publisher is unlikely to run that risk, and so will probably acquiesce to open access for those papers.

Of course, this approach will only work in those disciplines that have such conferences and refereed conference volumes produced to tight deadlines. But that's not really a problem. This isn't about converting the entire academic publishing industry to open access overnight, it's about keeping up the pressure to move there sooner rather than later.

from the how-sad dept

It's one thing to make bad predictions or be focused on the wrong thing -- but to totally spin the data to pretend you were right all along when it's pretty clear you were wrong... well, that's just delusional. And that appears to be the situation the RIAA is in. You may recall the fact that despite Hadopi trying to declare success because unauthorized file sharing appeared to have dropped off considerably, it was pretty clear the program was a failure because music sales continued to drop. And if the point of this kind of crackdown is to help the industry, then it seems like a pretty big failure. But, in the RIAA, apparently "failure is not an option" -- so they just take a clear story of failure and pretend it's a giant success , because there was a boost in digital sales and subscriptions -- even if overall revenue is down.

But this argument makes no sense. You can't just ignore the part of the market you don't like when it's inconvenient. The RIAA tries to get around this solely by focusing on growth within digital (and ignoring the continued free fall in analog sales). But if we're talking about the overall music market, shouldn't that be seen in how the impact is measured? Besides, as Saskia Walzel rightly points out, it appears that the growth in digital services that the RIAA trumpets as proof that Hadopi worked were seen in other countries as well -- including countries without such a draconian three strikes policy. So, while there may be a correlation between three strikes and people paying, the evidence of any sort of causal relationship is totally missing. The RIAA can't just pretend that the changes in France were due to Hadopi when the evidence suggests otherwise. At least someone should call them out for the claim.

from the they-never,-ever-stop dept

One thing that is important to understand about IP maximalists and their strategy for continually expanding monopoly powers against the public's fundamental rights is just what a comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy it is. It's not like they just try to pass a law like SOPA and are done. They're constantly working a comprehensive global strategy. Part of that means trying to get similar laws passed around the globe. But, at the same time, they're often working on a whole slew of international agreements as well. And while we're now all aware of the big treaties -- like ACTA and TPP -- there are all sorts of other things going on all the time.

As you hopefully know, in the US copyright is affixed to new and creative works as soon as they're put into a fixed form. But the copyright goes to whoever does that "fixing" or, on large productions, generally whoever is considered the "producer." The specific actors in, say, a TV show, don't get any specific rights in their performance. This makes sense. They're paid to do a job, which they do. However, some countries grant performers a copyright in their performances, and this new treaty is an attempt to push such rights for "audiovisual performers". As far as I can tell, this gives the performers in a work special new rights to stop how others use it. So, imagine a situation where someone wants to create a mashup video -- and they even get permission from the copyright holder to use it. Under this treaty, they'd then also need to get permission from everyone who appears in the video too, or they'll be violating that person's "audiovisual performance rights".

There are a variety of serious problems within the specifics, but just in general, why is this needed? It seems to serve no legitimate economic interest. All it does is create yet another category of monopoly rights that will certainly be abused to limit people's abilities to express themselves. It also almost guarantees that more new audiovisual works will be locked up and lost to culture. Already we have a serious problem with orphan works where the copyright holder can't be found. Imagine what happens when you need to find not just the copyright holder, but every single performer in the work and then secure a license from each of them. Yeah, basically every video will quickly become too expensive to ever use for anything, and thus it will be locked up.

Beyond that, there are some significant concerns in the details. Article 5 establishes "moral rights" in association with the economic rights. In the US, we've more or less (quite thankfully) ignored the requirement of the Berne Convention rules that say we need to recognize moral rights (to get around this, the US gives "moral rights" to a very, very tiny subset of artists). Moral rights, of course, are an idea built off of copyright, but rather than being about the economic incentives, they're about letting people stop the use of something because they don't like how it's used. We see people try to misuse copyright law all the time today because they don't like how a work is being used. The proper response is to let people know that's not allowed -- not to create new moral rights instead.

The agreement specifically states (in a footnote) that it shall apply to digital content online, including the requirement that performers have "the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction of
their performances." In other words, forget making videos that include performances with anyone who hasn't "licensed" you their performance right. How can the folks behind this not realize what kind of ridiculous problems this will cause? Take a video at a party of some people dancing -- and unless you've "licensed" the work from every dancer, you may be in trouble.

And, like pretty much every IP-related treaty these days, this one includes a stupid, technologically-illogical clause demanding anti-circumvention laws -- with no additional requirement that the only circumventions that apply are those that actually violate the other rights in the agreement. Instead, it's the same overly broad anti-circumvention clause that takes away your fundamental rights.

The whole thing is quite ridiculous, and just shows the nature of maximalist thinking. All they look to do is to create more and more monopolies that limit free speech and communication. It's really all about making the lawyers happier by creating more and more regulations for the kinds of things people do every day. Hopefully countries are smart enough to reject such a totally ridiculous concept, but from what we've heard, US officials are all for this garbage.

from the not-this-again dept

Every few months or so we see yet another story of a video game developer or publisher hating on the used games market, claiming that it's totally killing video games. Of course, the actual video game market is thriving, but facts aren't that important. Furthermore, as we've been pointing out for many years, studies have shown that a thriving used market helps the primary market, because buyers know they may be able to resell products in the future, and possibly make back a portion of the money in question.

Still, it doesn't stop game developers from insisting that the sky is falling and the world is ending because of used video game sales (thanks to Silence8 for being the first of many with that link):

Game designer Richard Browne has come out swinging in favor of the rumored antipiracy features in the next-gen PlayStation Orbis and Xbox Durango. "The real cost of used games is the damage that is being wrought on the creativity and variety of games available to the consumer," Browne writes. "The real cost of used games is the death of single player gaming."

The HotHardware post on this does a nice job debunking the claims, though it seems that earlier comments from the same site, noting that used game sales don't appear to be economically different than used books, should have ended this debate long ago. If video gamers are struggling to compete with the used market, they only have themselves to blame. Unless they want to overturn the first sale doctrine, they're just going t have to suck it up and learn to live with it. The idea that there's less creativity in the video game space because some people buy used games is simply ridiculous and not supported by any facts. If some publishers/developers are struggling to make money, then they need to work on problems with their own business model, rather than lashing out at the used market.

from the can't-take-the-heat dept

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh apparently has decided he can't handle criticism well, so he's abusing the DMCA to take down a video critical of him. The video does use Limbaugh video, but it seems like a pretty clear case of fair use. And, if we go by the standard established in the Lenz v. Universal case, those issuing a takedown are supposed to first consider fair use. If Limbaugh failed to do so, he could run into trouble.

But, more to the point: WTF? Why do people keep abusing the DMCA solely to silence free speech that criticizes them, at the same time they claim to be supporters of the First Amendment. You would think, by now, that Limbaugh has enough advisers who might recommend against taking down a silly YouTube video no one's watching any more -- but he seems to keep doing it, even if it seemingly goes against many of his claims.

Trumka delivered these remarks during the presentation of the report, taking time out to laud the "heavily unionized" but unsung heroes of the entertainment industry, especially those who make up the constantly-threatened demographic of "middle class professions." Trumka does the usual "it's not movie stars, it's the heavily unionized middle class" that suffers the most when infringement occurs, touching on the "downstream revenues" that provide the unsung heroes with their income. And he drops the almost-obligatory (and always unchallenged) statement expressing just how many jobs have been lost to "digital theft:"

But along with billions of dollars each year, digital theft has cost the U.S. entertainment industry countless jobs.

I'm inclined to agree with Trumka's estimate on lost jobs. It certainly is "countless." No one trotting out this anti-piracy trope seems to be able to provide anything more specific than "billions of dollars" and "countless jobs." You know, the Bureau of Labor does a little counting now and then and, according to its reported figures, the movie and music industries employ slightly over 400,000 people, all of whom have lost their jobs to digital theft within the past half decade, if statements like Trumka's are to be believed.

Of course, the more Trumka says, the further away he travels from anything resembling a "fact." His "corroborating evidence" speeds past the exit marked "Last Normal Talking Point for 500 Miles" and heads straight for the Hollywood suburb of Pure Speculation:

A 2011 report from the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated conservatively that if China protected intellectual property as the U.S. does, there would be approximately 923,000 new U.S. jobs.

So, if we're going to take this report at face value, the entertainment industry isn't actually losing any jobs, it's just failing to create new ones. I haven't "lost" every job I've never been hired for. Trying to claim that jobs "not created" is equal to "jobs lost" is the sort of last-ditch semantics deployed by spokesmen who know they've got nothing solid to work with. If Trumka's statements are taken at face value, simply getting China to play nice with American IP would more than triple the number of people employed by the movie and music industry.

Industries that rely heavily on patents, trademarks and copyrights have a significant impact on the economy and have a ripple employment effect to other industries not directly focused on IP. The report cited an employment increase of 46.3% among copyright-intensive industries between 1990 and 2011.

OK... So, which is it? Is the US creative economy leaking jobs at an alarming rate or is it stronger than it's been in over 2 decades? If these industries can show an employment increase of 46.3% while weathering the threat of blank CDs, Napster, BitTorrent, the Pirate Bay, personal computers, DVD burners, streaming services, file lockers and, well, pretty much everything Google-related, than what seems to be the problem? Is China really eating our IP lunch? Are we somehow simultaneously losing and gaining entertainment jobs at such a breakneck pace that even those delivering talking points can't even get on the same page of the report?

Yes, in fairness, these numbers are looking at different things. Trumka refers directly to the "entertainment industry," which to the AFL-CIO generally refers to the motion picture industry, where unionization is more prevalent. The Copyright Alliance blog simply mentions "copyright intensive industries," which somehow include the same industries (software, computing) that took a stand against the last major "copyright intensive" legislation push, not to mention unrelated things like "dairy products". Nevertheless, there is quite the contradiction between the soothsaying on one end and the cheerleading on the other.

In the rush to make it appear as though many millions of Americans (40 million, according to their own numbers -- 20% of the nation's workforce) are somehow dependent on thriving "copyright intensive" industries, the cheerleading squad manages to contradict its own claims. Either the inclusion of the tech industry to the "copyright intensive" workforce is responsible for the entire 46.3% jump in employment (or more actually, considering "countless jobs lost"), or the entertainment industry (read: movies and music) isn't shedding workers quite as fast as the surrounding panic would indicate. In fact, the industries affected the most by"digital theft" seem to rise and fall at the same rate as "non-IP intensive" industries, as indicated by information included in the IP-sky-is-falling report.

The final question remains: why would anyone believe these numbers? The jobs theoretically affected by "digital theft" range from the Bureau of Labor's reported 400K to the industries' own estimates, which vary from 5.1 million ("...creative community, including software, content and computing industries...") to a thoroughly ridiculous 40 million ("...IP-intensive industries support at least 40 million jobs and contributing $5 trillion dollars to the economy..."). Without a true baseline, the numbers mean nothing. "Countless jobs lost" will remain unenumerated due to a lack of information, which works out just fine for the industries' lobbyists and spokesmen. Nothing's scarier than unspecified amounts. Leaving the job losses "countless" allows them to be as large as anyone wants, needs or imagines them to be.

from the fearing-fear-itself dept

Through TNW, we learn of a survey published by threat protection company Bit9 that states an attack by Anonymous is the number one thing IT security professionals fear. Doubtless the release of this survey was timed to coincide with CISPA, the dangerous cybersecurity bill that is being debated in the House this week. It's no surprise that a security provider would want to play up the fear of cyber attack, but I'm reminded of a quote from comedian Dara O'Briain: "Zombies are at an all time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high. It doesn't mean we have to have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies."

Apart from the fact that the fear of something is pretty meaningless (except to those who sell security, and those who want to pass bad laws), the details of the survey make it clear that this is entirely a matter of the hype around Anonymous:

61% believe that their organizations could suffer an attack by Anonymous, or other hacktivist groups.

Despite the utter sense of fear that Anonymous has created over the years, 62% were more worried about the actual method of attack, with malware accounting for the most cause for concern at 48%.

Only 11% of the respondents were concerned about one of Anonymous’ actual methods of attack – DDoS, while fears over SQL injections dipped to a measly 4%. Phishing was a concern for 17% of the respondents.

So, despite the fact that Anonymous apparently has them shaking in their boots, they know that their real vulnerability is malware—and that's not really Anonymous' game. The fear is manufactured.

What this survey calls attention to, though, is a fact that deserves more attention: under CISPA or a similar law, Anonymous would make a juicy target. Security companies and the government could collude and share data not only to strengthen their networks against attack, which would itself be perfectly reasonable, but also to identify and investigate Anonymous members, notwithstanding any other privacy laws. Regardless of how you feel about Anonymous' tactics, this should concern you: privacy rights and the 4th Amendment exist for a reason, and CISPA would wash them away online. The authors of the bill insist that it targets foreign entities, but it is arguably an even stronger weapon against domestic hacktivism that will inevitably be used and abused.

from the say-what-now? dept

A decade ago psychologist Sherry Turkle was at the forefront of encouraging children to go online so they could better learn to communicate with others. Yet, somewhere over the past decade, she's shifted almost entirely, and joined the "get off my lawn" generation. Her latest is a screed in the NY Times about how all of this social networking makes us all lonely because kids can no longer talk to humans face to face any more. At least that's what I think she's saying. Perhaps it would make more sense if she explained it face to face, because the arguments in the article don't fully make sense. It talks about how the kids these days in the workplace put on headphones and work instead of talking to each other. Some might call that being focused on work rather than chit chat. And, chances are many of them are still talking to each other via instant messaging, which is often more efficient anyway.

Of course, to Turkle, that kind of communicating doesn't count. It's not clear why -- other than it's "different." And therefore it's bad. The argument isn't particularly convincing... and it gets worse at the end. It turns out that actually communicating with people makes us more lonely. We'd apparently all be less lonely if we spent more time alone:

So, in order to feel more, and to feel more like ourselves, we connect. But in our rush to connect, we flee from solitude, our ability to be separate and gather ourselves. Lacking the capacity for solitude, we turn to other people but don’t experience them as they are. It is as though we use them, need them as spare parts to support our increasingly fragile selves.

We think constant connection will make us feel less lonely. The opposite is true. If we are unable to be alone, we are far more likely to be lonely. If we don’t teach our children to be alone, they will know only how to be lonely.

from the good-luck-with-that dept

As our Canadian readers surely know, Toronto has a weird relationship with its current mayor, Rob Ford. I won't get into all the details, but basically he's a bit of a clown, elected by outlying semi-suburban neighbourhoods and roundly hated by most people downtown (except the city press, for whom he is an endless source of mockable quotes and photos). Among his many, many controversial initiatives as mayor is an anti-graffiti push that has come under fire for indiscriminately targeting authorized street art alongside actual vandalism (including the removal of one mural that was actually commissioned and paid for by the city itself). Apparently he's just as clueless about technology as he is about art, because as reader abc gum sends in, he's now asking people to report graffiti with an iPhone app—which costs money.

Taking the city's battle to clean up Toronto digital, Rob Ford visited a lane way near St. Clair and Lansdowne to unveil a new mobile app that lets citizens report unwanted graffiti instantly. Instead of coughing up for a phone call, smart phone users can now snap a picture and whisk it off to 311 for processing.

"This is as efficient as it gets," remarked Ford at press conference earlier today. "This will make it easier than ever to report graffiti vandalism and help keep the city spotless.

...

The app, which costs $1.99 (and is currently only available for iPhone), lets Apple smartphone users send photographs directly to the city with a request to remove of the offending material. If the property owner fails to clean up the tag, the city will - so they say - step in and bill the owner for the work.

Uh-huh. So instead of "coughing up" a phone call to the city information line, Rob Ford is hoping people will cough up two bucks (not even 99 cents?). And not just any people—the iPhone wielding, app downloading demographic that is his biggest enemy and the least interested in fighting graffiti. Whether it's pitched as a useful service for citizens or a request that they do their civic duty, slapping a price tag on it makes it little more than a joke.

Perhaps the most telling thing is that the app is built on the Open311 API that Toronto (among other cities) uses to provide access to city services—and yet nobody else seems to be bothering to try to build a graffiti reporting app. If there was a demand for it, there would be a swarm of developers working on it, and they probably would have beaten the city to the punch. Somehow I doubt that a two-dollar app is going to make people suddenly realize they've wanted this all along.

from the no-privacy-violations dept

A few years ago, we wrote about how Swedish ISP ePhone was refusing to hand over info on its subscribers who were accused of infringement, arguing that the country's IPRED (IP enforcement) law was in violation of EU law. That case bounced around the Swedish courts before hitting the EU Court of Justice, who recently decided that it is perfectly reasonable for ISPs to be ordered to hand over customer info -- if certain specific conditions are met to keep it in-line with the EU data retention rules.

While perhaps somewhat unfortunate from a privacy perspective, I don't actually find the ruling to be that surprising, and the impact is not all that far-reaching. It's pretty well-established that companies can be compelled to give up private info on people as part of a legal dispute. The larger concern should be over the standard of evidence required before such info is handed over (and also whether or not the accused has the opportunity to anonymously fight the release of info, should he or she believe that the release would be in error). The EU Court of Justice has had some goodrulingslately, pushing back on copyright maximalism, but this particular ruling isn't really all that surprising, given the details. In fact, the full ruling suggests that it was tackling a very narrow question that really changes little. It doesn't even say that such info should always be given up -- just that, if certain conditions are met, it could be legal to require ISPs to hand it over.

from the context-is-key dept

When filling out a patent application, the purpose is two-fold. The first purpose of the application is to provide enough information for the patent examiner to determine if your invention is original and non-obvious, thus patentable. The second purpose of the application is to provide enough information for someone skilled in the art the invention falls under to recreate the invention. Often to fulfill these two purposes it is necessary to include illustrations to help visualize key parts that may be difficult to explain solely in writing. Yet, what happens when you strip these images out of the application and look at them without any context at all? Would you be able to discern just from the image what the patent is? Via io9, we learn of a Tumblr account that takes this idea of context free patent illustrations and runs with it.

Let's take a look at a few of these illustrations and see just what each might be:

Either Ian Bogost has been granted a patent for clicking a cow on the internet or someone has patented the sirloin steak.

It looks like someone has invented a new method for dispensing cats for adoption via a very large crane game. Not sure how happy the cats will be when adopted, but the game sure looks fun.

While I have often wondered why my 6 year-old's crayon drawings need copyright, I can tell by these next couple of illustrations that even without copyright she could make quite the living drawing illustrations for patent applications.

I can honestly say, my daughter's art is way better.

Who would have thought that people might want to wear shoes while wrestling? I know I certainly wouldn't have conceived of the idea had it not been for this patent application.

Ooh. Looks like someone has been awarded a patent on modern copyright maximalist strategy. The mine cart represents the one track mind of those seeking more enforcement legislation. The Whac-a-Mole represents how effective those measures are in real life. I like it.

While I feel that illustrations can be invaluable to a properly filed application, especially for those seeking to use those applications when the patents expire, one must really look at these sample illustrations and many of the others posted in the Tumblr blog and wonder, "Are these illustrations really helping to promote the progress?"